An honest question for the Freemasons here.

Please understand I'm not jabbing at anyone asking this question, but I would like an honest answer to a thought that came up in a conversation
today.

At lunch we were discussing homosexuality in the workplace, and whether it is more accepted these days. This got me to thinking, as one of our staff
is a Freemason. Quiet guy, really nice and helpful, the typical Mason I know and have had dealings with over the years.
I wanted to ask the question, but felt a little awkward and rude in what I felt was calling this guy out in front of my work colleagues about
something he is usually private about.

What is the Masonic stance on gay members? I know all religion is tolerated, and the Masons seem to be fairly tolerant of difference, but I just
wondered if they have either an official or unofficial stance on allowing members who are gay in joining?
I mean no disrespect to either gays or Masons, but would like an honest answer from actual Masons.

Masonry regards a man for his inner qualities, not his external qualities. So every man should be considered equal and on the same level. That being
said, masonry is made up of regular men. Men with flaws. The official stance is always the same.

The only requirements is you must be a man, freeborn, non felon, a good man, believe in God or a higher power.
If I was to give advice to a gay man who wanted to join, I would say, don't ask, don't tell, until you are balloted upon. Once you are a brother,
Masonic law will no allow any wrongdoing, but during the voting process, you are subject to men of all backgrounds and beliefs.

Masonry regards a man for his inner qualities, not his external qualities. So every man should be considered equal and on the same level. That being
said, masonry is made up of regular men. Men with flaws. The official stance is always the same.

The only requirements is you must be a man, freeborn, non felon, a good man, believe in God or a higher power.
If I was to give advice to a gay man who wanted to join, I would say, don't ask, don't tell, until you are balloted upon. Once you are a brother,
Masonic law will no allow any wrongdoing, but during the voting process, you are subject to men of all backgrounds and beliefs.

That's pretty much what I suspected, given the Mason's tolerance for all kinds of religion, I just wasn't sure due to the religious angle of
Freemasonry. You just see so much bigotry against gays, especially from the Christian side, that it may filter down to the same aspect of Masonry. But
you are right, all the Masons I have ever met and had dealings with, particularly my work colleague, they seem to be pretty open minded people. I mean
he doesn't even roll his eyes when I talk about the NWO and Monsanto to him....

“In every right angled triangle the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.”

To betray this ratio is to betray Masonry. It is founded on the perfect right triangle with 3, 4 and 5. The square of 3 is 9. The square of 4 is
16. The sum of 9 and 16 is 25 with 25 representing the hypotenuse. The square root of 25 is 5. Therefore, the ratio is written: 3:4:5

The Egyptians considered this the universal nature of mankind. How would a triangle look with 3:3:5? Can you even have a triangle with 3:3:5? No.

The Republic - Plato’s theory in Book VIII, Chapter III

3 Osiris - Hypotenuse - the male principle

4 Isis - The Base - composed of four units - the female principle

5 Horus - five units – was seen as the product of the first two principles

Unless the Masons betray their primary foundation, the very thing they see as the significance of their organization, they would not replace 4 with
another 3. It doesn't make sense. Then again, I am not a Mason.

The world is built on this ratio. Anything else would make buildings fall down. The building starts with the foundation. Of course, this is what
the Operative Mason relies on. Maybe the Speculative Mason would have a different view.

What would James Anderson say?

“The Great Pythagoras, provided the Author of the 47th Proposition of Euclid's first Book, which, if duly observed, is the Foundation of all
Masonry, sacred, civil, and military…. This wise philosopher, Pythagoras, enriched his mind abundantly in a general knowledge of things, and more
especially in Geometry, or Masonry. On this subject he drew out many problems and theorems, and, among the most distinguished, he erected this, when,
in the joy of his heart, he exclaimed Eureka, in the Greek language signifying, "I have found it," and upon the discovery of which he is said to have
sacrificed a hecatomb. It teaches Masons to be general lovers of the arts and sciences.”

Isn't the square the jewel of the worshipful master? Would he betray his jewels? How can the square work if the ratio is off?

Two lines, when joined at the same point, cannot have an angle between if they are on top of each other. It's just not correct geometry. Life must
be a circle. Angles fit inside circles. This is just basic knowledge.

To the OP, here is a great quote from "The Builders" by Joseph Fort Newton:

Masonry is Friendship—friendship, first, with the great Companion, of whom our own hearts tell us, who is always nearer to us than we are to
our-selves, and whose inspiration and help is the greatest fact of human experience. To be in harmony with His purposes, to be open to His
suggestions, to be conscious of fellowship with Him—this is Masonry on its Godward side.

Then, turning man-ward, friendship sums it all up. To be friends with all men, however they may differ from us in creed, color, or condition;
to fill every human relation with the spirit of friendship; is there anything more or better than this that the wisest and best of men can hope to do?
Such is the spirit of Masonry; such is its ideal, and if to realize it all at once is denied us, surely it means much to see it, love it, and labor
to make it come true.

Nor is this Spirit of Friendship a mere sentiment held by a sympathetic, and therefore unstable, fraternity, which would dissolve the concrete
features of humanity into a vague blur of misty emotion. No; it has its roots in a profound philosophy which sees that the universe is friendly, and
that men must learn to be friends if they would live as befits the world in which they live, as well as their own origin and destiny.

For, since God is the life of all that was, is, and is to be; and since we are all born into the world by one high wisdom and one vast love, we are
brothers to the last man of us, forever! For better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, and even after death us do part, all
men are held together by ties of spiritual kinship, sons of one eternal Friend. Upon this fact human fraternity rests, and it is the basis of the plea
of Masonry, not only for freedom, but for friendship among men.

The Grand Master of my Grand Lodge last year thought about trumping up or re-defining some of the old language to make homosexuality a Masonic
offense, with the penalty of getting kicked out. His legal advisors all told him he'd be an idiot for doing so, so he dropped it. I don't even
remember how he'd framed the argument, but it was a non-issue.

Edit: (If I recall correctly, I think he was trying to redefine "Libertine" as gay. And since Master Masons swear not to make libertines Masons, then
any Mason who ever attended the 3rd degree raising of any gay Mason would retroactively be kicked out, which would cause a whole mess of
worms.)

There really shouldn't be a reason that it would come up, honestly. (no pun intended)

You are incorrect on this. Freemasonry takes a stance on Truth, Character and the Law. All of the Masonic tradition is based on the Truth and the
pursuit of building the temple of man on principles of law.

Here is what all of us need to realize: Truth defines law, not the other way around. Law is a requirement of truth. Law is not the absolute, but
refined by truth. Truth is immutable. Law is the product of truth. God's perfect law is based on the immutable truth that cannot be argued. When
man noticed that the law is applied mathematically to the triangle, this then formed the foundation for Masonry and the Builders who must apply law
for the construction of a building to be true.

I am not arguing a person's right to choose and neither should the Masons. This does not preclude the truth that being outside the perfect law goes
against everything the Masons stand for. As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, the law clearly shows the pattern in nature that defines
the divine triangle of the family within the circle. This is not something that you or anyone can argue. It's simply a fact. Nature and God's law
only provide for truth as an unmoved realization of the reality we occupy. The best choice is the family as founded on God's law. Anything outside
of this simply breaks the triangle and tries to fit it in an untrue measure.

The Homosexual can break the law all they want. We are all sinners. This does not change that fact that there is a better way based on truth. We
reap what we sow. If we break the law, it breaks us. The same is true for the builder. If the plumb-line is not true, neither is the wall or the
foundation it is built upon.

Again, we are all sinners. None of us can claim that we follow the perfect law with complete alignment on truth. The best builders in the world are
still off by a fraction. No building is perfection, neither is any man.

The Masons, by their own rules, are exclusive and founded on private associations. An open homosexual would likely be voted by someone with a
blackball. I would expect that It would depend on the openness of the candidate and the makeup of the membership.

While I am at it, the church is supposed to be non-exclusive and open to anyone. The church should not have secrets, yet most congregations show bias
on some issues. The moto in most churches is to love the sinner but hate the sin. This is the best we can do. We cling to truth and help others
rise to it as well.

Any Mason can blackball a petitioner for any reason, and the ballot is secret, and we might never know who did it or why. Many men are uncomfortable
around gay men, and especially in the older circles, and Masonry is full of old men. I have a feeling my lodge would not be very accepting of a gay
member, but at the same time I have a very strong suspicion that our Senior Deacon is gay. As long as it is not advertised or flaunted, it would
never be a problem. By the same token, we don't advertise or flaunt our heterosexuality either.

We aren't talking about sexual conquests in Lodge, so the idea of gay or straight doesn't really have any business in the Lodge anyway.

There is some of the degree work that necessarily exposes skin, no genitalia, but skin. A gay man might be uncomfortable with that, or a straight man
might be uncomfortable knowing a gay man was conducting him through the degree. That might be a semi-legitimate concern, but no different than going
to a gym locker room, or peeing at a football game, so someone with the integrity to be a good Mason, should be able to get past a little hangup like
that.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I like the "don't ask, don't tell" idea.

Any Mason can blackball a petitioner for any reason, and the ballot is secret, and we might never know who did it or why. Many men are uncomfortable
around gay men, and especially in the older circles, and Masonry is full of old men. I have a feeling my lodge would not be very accepting of a gay
member, but at the same time I have a very strong suspicion that our Senior Deacon is gay. As long as it is not advertised or flaunted, it would
never be a problem. By the same token, we don't advertise or flaunt our heterosexuality either.

We aren't talking about sexual conquests in Lodge, so the idea of gay or straight doesn't really have any business in the Lodge anyway.

There is some of the degree work that necessarily exposes skin, no genitalia, but skin. A gay man might be uncomfortable with that, or a straight man
might be uncomfortable knowing a gay man was conducting him through the degree. That might be a semi-legitimate concern, but no different than going
to a gym locker room, or peeing at a football game, so someone with the integrity to be a good Mason, should be able to get past a little hangup like
that.

I would be interested to hear your answer based on the truth of the triangle. Have I shown the highest pursuit in my first comment? Can a homosexual
be true with the law? Is there a better way that can be verified by the truths know by Masons for immutable truth?

Don't ask and don't tell goes against the aim of the Masons. They are trying to build a better man. This must be done by seeing the law in nature
as formed by the truth of God. Would you agree with that statement?

Don't ask and don't tell goes against the aim of the Masons. They are trying to build a better man. This must be done by seeing the law in
nature as formed by the truth of God. Would you agree with that statement?

I'm not sure I am qualified to give you an answer. I'm a Mason, and an Engineer, and an Investigator, and a Spiritual man, but the things you
posted are beyond me.

My personal views on sexuality would probably shock you. I don't think sexuality has anything to do with truth or God, except that we have taken
this carnal existence to experience what it has to offer, and evolve in a spiritual way to be better equipped for our spiritual existence outside of
this realm. When I look at it that way, I see a need for both pleasure and exploration of the flesh, and self-discipline, moderation, and celibacy.
I think it is important we explore all things internal and external to build our spiritual being on a basis of experience instead of speculation.
Take from that what you will.

Enoch........ Sometimes I wished you picked a different nick name. Someone who claims Enoch was right, yet goes out of the way to twist ancient
books to suit your agenda... It's maddening.

Freemasonry has no interest in its members sex lives. What a man does in his bedroom is his own business. Gay men are welcome to join the Order as
long as they meet the requirements. Sexual orientation doesn't matter.

Plato wrote of the family unit in terms of the 3:4:5 triangle, but it was Plutarch that combined this idea with the Mysteries of Isis and
Osiris. Osiris was the father and Isis was the mother of Horus but you are applying Judeo-Christian values to an ancient religion that had it's own
sense of morality.

According to Papyrus Chester-Beatty I, Set is depicted as trying to prove his dominance by seducing Horus and then having intercourse with him.
However, Horus places his hand between his thighs and catches Set's semen, then subsequently throws it in the river, so that he may not be said to
have been inseminated by Set. Horus then deliberately spreads his own semen on some lettuce, which was Set's favorite food. After Set had eaten the
lettuce, they went to the gods to try to settle the argument over the rule of Egypt. The gods first listened to Set's claim of dominance over Horus,
and call his semen forth, but it answered from the river, invalidating his claim. Then, the gods listened to Horus' claim of having dominated Set, and
call his semen forth, and it answered from inside Set.

Also - As Past Master of my lodge if I found out a man was refused membership due to his sexual orientation, I would bring the objectors up on
Masonic charges. That's not how we do business.

I'd have to disagree with that. Every man in the Lodge is welcome to their own opinion, and I might try to sway their opinion using logic and reason
and survival of the Lodge, and examples of wonderful gay men, but I wouldn't bring them up on charges. The members of my Lodge are my current
family, and I wouldn't take the side of a relative stranger and potential member over that of my own existing brothers on any subject unless it was
just blatantly in opposition to our moral code.

I don't see a problem with gay members, but I don't see any moral wrong in opposing gay members either. I don't see how it could warrant Masonic
charges?

We had a homosexual man join our lodge last year (asian as well for those that think only white guys join). It was only discussed 1 time, he said he
was gay, we said we didn't care, and it's never been brought up since. Because we don't care.

I'm not going to say ALL lodges are so tolerant .. I'm sure there are backward lodges out there.

Don't ask and don't tell goes against the aim of the Masons. They are trying to build a better man. This must be done by seeing the law in
nature as formed by the truth of God. Would you agree with that statement?

I'm not sure I am qualified to give you an answer. I'm a Mason, and an Engineer, and an Investigator, and a Spiritual man, but the things you posted
are beyond me.

My personal views on sexuality would probably shock you. I don't think sexuality has anything to do with truth or God, except that we have taken this
carnal existence to experience what it has to offer, and evolve in a spiritual way to be better equipped for our spiritual existence outside of this
realm. When I look at it that way, I see a need for both pleasure and exploration of the flesh, and self-discipline, moderation, and celibacy. I
think it is important we explore all things internal and external to build our spiritual being on a basis of experience instead of speculation. Take
from that what you will.

I like your answer. In some ways, I agree with you. This is definitely an education we live, but laws can be understood. We know that laws are
fixed, yet we have no direct knowledge of the process. Other than the fact that laws are set by immutable truth, we go with or against the law to
find the truth by experience. Reaping and sowing allows us room for growth. In my mind, this allows the separation of fact from faith to keep us
contractually out of the loop of knowing for sure. This insures our lack of liability in some ways. I can imagine that our later existence will use
this one as a reflecting point as we learn the actual truth as fact.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.